Jewish Jihad? The Jewish Approach to War | Rabbi Shmuel Goldin

look at one of the most difficult passages in the Torah. Difficult in terms of our sensibilities. We're going to try to understand not only that paragraph, but the Jewish approach towards war in general. And when by the time we finish, hopefully we'll have a better understanding of how to approach these kinds of passages in the Torah. You put that perfectly around. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. It's not working right. It's working. It's working. Okay. All right. Fine. If you take a look at the first page of your handouts. Now, before I forget, due to an oversight, Hashem's name appears in this handout. So, although I treat all the handouts as shame, this one is really Shemote. So, please if either take it back and put it in shame or or give it to me. Okay. All right. I don't know what to do here. Okay. Can you hear me better like this? Okay. And that's what we'll do. All right. What I what I said for those that couldn't hear is that this shorter falls into the category of what I would say you can run but not hide. What I mean by that is this is a passage in the Torah that most of us would like to ignore. not not deal with. It runs against the sensibilities that we have been raised with and it's difficult for us to understand. Take a look at the story of the battle against Midan which occupies the first part of your source sheets. Moshe commands, God commands Moshe to respond to the devastation that has been caused by the Midionites and the tragic events surrounding Bal Por. If you'll remember at the end of Bum at the end of the Bum's journey, he moves from according to Kazal and it's and from the Torah text itself, he moves from cursing Ben or trying to curse Ben Israel to actually moving against them by bringing the women from Mijan to seduce them and causing them to worship idolatry. Many of them take part in this extravaganza and Hashem responds by creating a plague and many many Israelites perish because of the events at Balpar. Hashem therefore commands Moshe to take not revenge but to act out against Midyan that they are your enemies. You need to pursue them. You need to pursue them immediately upon my commandment. Baraku says that you not to spare anyone. They're not to be spared. And the Israelites set out against Midan and the battle against Midan begins. Turn to the second page. The victorious army returns and Moshe is angered. Why is Moshe angered? If you take a look at the top of the page, he says to the army, "Did you let every female live? They were the ones who caused the children of Israel by the word of Bum to commit a betrayal against the Lord Bal paora. Moshe commands the nation and this is where it gets even harder for us to understand. Moshe commands the nation to put all Midionite children and all females old enough to be sexually active to death by the sword. All female children, he explains, can remain in captivity. How are we to approach what seems to us as Jewish jihad? In other words, how are we to approach this kind of text in the Torah where we are taking acting out? No, it doesn't work. It works, but it doesn't. They say they hear me better this way. Okay. Someone just asked me. All right. You want me to try again? Okay, I'll try again. All right. Okay. All right. Good. Oh, we're trying again. Okay. It's better on my vocal cords as well. All right. So, we How do we approach this very, very difficult passage? How do we understand God's commandment to kill women and children? What's going on here? and and we take we speak out against those who produce jihad and kill civilians. How are we to explain what we did? So, first thing we have to do is we have to back up. We're going to leave this section and we're going to return to it at the end of the class. We have to back up and start examining how does Jewish law view war and what are the rules of engagement and how do they apply to us today as well. So if you look you find in section number well before we do that actually I forgot section number two which is wrongly marked section number three the fact that we have a problem with this is mirrored by kazal it's not as if we shouldn't feel bad that we are wrestling with our understanding of this text kazal create a medish in which sha the first king is arguing with aeshbaku upon on receiving the commandment to destroy Amalo. And Schul says concerning one slain Sh the Torah mandates the atoning ritual of the axe ter of the egglo. How much more will atonement be necessary if I slay them? And if the people have sinned, how have the animals sinned? And if the adults have sinned, how have the children sinned? So what you have here is you have really the questions that we're asking. And look at God's response. Don't be overly righteous. I told you to do this. Do it. So the medish really leaves the question hanging, but shows us that Kazal struggled with the very same struggle that we're we are having when we view passages like this. So now let's go let's go back to approaching war from a Jewish perspective. There are the first thing we do is we have to classify two different kinds of war. There is what what is called within kazal mitzvah and there's rash. There is a there are wars that are a mitzvah to fight such as mid commanded by God and there are wars that are are up to us. We can determine or up to the leaders who can determine whether to fight those wars or not. If you turn the page the first well the first Ramb the bottom of the page on page two says it in Hebrew. Raam explains the differences between milit mitzvah and milt rish. First of all, we have to understand that the category of milit mitzvah is very severely limited. It applies only to the seven nations that occupied Israel upon Israel, occupied Cananan on Israel's entry into the land. They had to be eradicated and it applies to a mole and it applies to anyone who attacks us. So mu mitzvah is self-defense and the eradication of evil represented by those nations and by amik and our what we are told in the obligatory conflict no living soul is to be left alive now we'll come back to this in just a moment though then there's m and by the way the king the raam says the king can decide on his own when it's time to do this milit mitzvah because it's a standing commandment he doesn't have to consult with anyone he can command the warmed rash is different rash is a war that a nation needs to fight or decides to fight to expand its borders to increase its mark on the on the society rash should needs the king must confer with the Sanhedrin before calling the war and in a m rash the Jewish nation must spare the lives of enemy women and children. Okay. The difference between and mitzvah now however yes today does the the head of a state is he like the king does the head of the state have the right to declare me mitzvah today it's a good question I doubt it because the rules for a king were very specific and no one today classifies as king in that in that regard. They are what they think they are. They act like they are. Uh so I don't think that the law would say that Halo would say that the prime minister can do it without consultation. But this is the way it was when we had kings. See where the war we're fighting today is I'll get to you. I'll get to you. All right. We're going to talk about that. The war we're fighting today. All right. There is a passage in the Torah, however, that is the source of tremendous debate. Take a look at the bottom of page three. When you are about to engage in a battle or in a war against a particular city or place or country, your first step must be to offer them the possibility of peace. And if they accept the possibility of peace, they will become part of your society in a lower level. In other words, you will like like Evett Kanani, let's say. And under those conditions, they will be spared. If they refuse to accept peace, then you are to engage in war. Now, what's the debate about this section? Does this refer only to Milt Rashut or does it refer to Milt Mitzvah as well? Rashi and many others. If you take a look at the bottom of the page, Rashi says, the Torah is here speaking about the rules only of optional warfare. And by the way, from the flow of the text, it seems that that is the case. And therefore, what it would mean is I only need to sue for peace or give the option for peace in an optional war. But in a mitzvah I have to engage without that. However, a number of other commentaries, particularly the Rambam and the Rambam say differently. Take a look at the language of the Ramba. The first sentence is powerful. Shalom. Mitzvah. We do not engage in war, says the Ramb with any living soul. Now, who does that include? We'll have to see. But any living soul, he says, unless we first give them the option for peace. And that applies to both Milt Mitzvah and to Milt Rash. What was his source for this? What? Say again. What was the source of the source? His his source. He understands that passage that we just read in the Torah as being more expansive than Rashi and others. He says that refers to every war. It refers to every war. Now this becomes a little problematic when we consider milit mitzvah because we said that mu mitzvah is reserved only for the seven nations right and for amik and and anyone who attacks you but that's another that's another so are we saying that we have to give mole the chance to to sue for peace we've been told to to wage war against we'll come back to that but what about the seven nations We entered Cananan and we decimated many of the nations. Did we before we do did so did we sue for peace? Did we offer them peace? Certainly it's not doesn't emerge from the Tanakh that we did. However, if you take a look at the Ramban down below, no actually take a look first at the Rambam and then Ramban will will expand what he says. He says only from the seven nations of the world you have can't spare a soul. I'm telling you, says Ramba, when the commandment exists to move against the seven nations, those are only those nations which did not accept your terms of peace. And it includes now it seems it includes zamalik but we'll come back to that. So what you have here is you have the Rambam saying that we entered cananan we first pursued peace. The Ramban brings down a rabbitic tradition. If you look at the underlined section at the bottom now I I looked up that word in English. it doesn't exist. So, I'm not quite sure what a pro dictim is, but it's some sort of message, right? says to before attacking any one of those nations, we pursued peace. It's not there. It's not written in in Yahushua. You don't see it. But these members of Kazal and certainly the Rambam and the Ramban are towering towering figures in halakic development. They say that it applies both to Milit Mitzvah and to Mil and it applied to the seven nations convert to Judaism. No. Very interesting. They have to it seems that they have to become We'll talk about what they have to do. All right. Talk about that. All right. Take a look, however, at um at the bottom at the bottom of the paragraph on page five. Shalomdus alas. Okay. Can you still hear me? Yeah. All right. The the the mic is still working. The lights are out, but the mic is still working. All right. So, what do we have? We have Yoshua. Apparently, according to the Medish, sent messages to the seven nations saying to them, "It's your choice. You can have peace with us and become sort of our servants, people who were conquered." And we'll see what that means in a moment. Or you can leave. Your option or you can fight. And if you're going to fight, this is a Moheis nations. No, not necessarily. We started No, no. It's a that we said that the details of the definition of a MT mitzvah is a war against the mole. Even if he doesn't attack you at that point, a war against the seven nations, even if they don't attack you, you have to eradicate them. and and war against someone who attacks you. So these these particular cases and we'll have to discuss why these particular cases you had to take you had to go your job was to to take take to to attack them according to the Rambam and the Ramban after giving them the option for peace. So how do they interpret the issue of the Gians? So okay, excellent. Excellent. In order to get they could have just said we all right very good. If you remember the the give onim come to Ben Israel and say they want to have peace and they actually masquerade as a distant population etc etc and and Israel accepts them with serious limits. The rabbis who say that we sued for peace use that as an example because when the describes the gonim it says they were the only ones who accepted peace. So if they were the if you're saying that they were the only no in other words no one accepted peace except for the gon. There were the shr. Well, that's later. That's that's later. This is, you know, no one at the time of Yoshua. In other words, the the it's in Yahushua. Let me see if I have that. Um, yeah. Yoshua Alfa Yud Alfess and Cuff. If you take a look at the top of page five, the second underlying line at the end of that, right? Okay, where is it? I'm sorry. Down about five lines down. Yoshon. So what is it literally saying? There was no nation that accepted peace except for the Gavonim. Now if it's saying that in Yahosua, it would seem that if the Gonim are the only ones who accepting peace, it means the other ones had the opportunity to accept peace. Why would they have to disguise themselves? What? Just accept peace? Good question. Why did they then have to disguise themselves? I'm not we'd have to analyze the event a little more clearly. But this this puk from Yoshua is used by those who say that we sued for peace even with the nations. Yes. The big fancy word you wrote there. That was a delegation that went to Doha. I'm sorry. Say again. That was a delegation. They said Doha. Oh, you mean now today? A delegation. All right. We're going to talk about today. Yeah. Nothing though. Suppose some of the people you come to the city and they put the white flag of some of the people, right? Nothing. Oh, very good question. We'll get to that in a minute. That's the next step. The next step. Okay. So, so far we have disserts of opinion concerning suing for peace. Some commentaries saying it's before every war, some saying it's only before an optional war. Now the next thing that happens is look at theim concerning the Midianite war and it says the following. If you take a look at the bottom of page five they attacked or masked against Midon as the Lord commanded Moshe. So say to the rabbis, wait a minute. It seems from the text that Moshe commanded them a specific thing concerning the attack. Not just that they should attack, but he gave them some sort of definition as to the limitations or the character of the attack. Kazal say, you know what it was? It was a rule. When you fight against an enemy, you can only surround them from three sides. You have to allow those who want to flee to flee. And they claim this was the case with Mid as well. And that's what it means when it says Moshe. We don't we don't have a record of that commandment, but we have a record that it existed, say Kazal, and that's what it was. So now, not only do we have the possibility that we're supposed to sue for peace in every war, but every war is to be fought given those who have the option of waving the white flag and saying we want to we want to get we don't want any part of this. They have the opportunity. You have to give them the opportunity to escape. And since it's again against mid as well, it would seem that it applies even during a mitzvah. Next, take a look at page number six. The Rambam at the top of the page quotifies this statement and says that whenever you are going against a city, you have to only surround, you're not allowed to surround it from three four sides. You have to leave one side vacant. And it this requirement appar apparently applies to all wars. But now we come to something else. And now we're going to talk we're going to move away from the biblical and the time of Tanakh to today. There is a fascinating understanding by Kazal that seriously affects our ability to pro wage war as a mitzvah. And what is that? It comes from a very it comes from a source in the Mishna, but it dealing with a different issue. If you take a look at section number six, who's on first, and there's a summary of this underneath, but I'll I'll read some of the Hebrew. Omarlo Reboshua, what happened was an Ammonite or a selfproclaimed Ammonite, someone from the nation of Ammon came to the rabbis of the in the time of the Talmud, the Mishna, and said, "I want to convert." This presented a problem. Why? Because the Torah says you're not allowed to let an Ammonite convert to Judaism. What did they do? They accepted him. And it was a debate. We have no ammonites today says the says Reboshua. From the time of Sanrev, we can no longer identify individuals who are part of specific nations. Now what? Why? Why? From the time of Serv because he was a very smart king. when he first of all he he is the one who exiled the 10 tribes. All right. In other words, Sanv is the orchestrator of the exile of the 10 tri. But what they did what he did was very interesting. It's very smart. He would take a conquered people and he would split them apart into different sections and he would move them to different places certainly out of their land but to different lands to different countries to different peoples. So you had some people living in X and some people living in Y. And what was the benefit to Sanv? They couldn't get together and revolt. But that's why the 10 tribes disappear because it happened to us. And the 10 tribes are lost because of San because he spread them around and they assimilated some of them or disappeared into various different nations and various different populations and they can't be identified today as a rule. There are those who claim that they have found some of the 10 tribes and that maybe they have. Yes. that during the time of the uh when the were still left, right? Took went to all the different countries and gathered people from each tribe and brought them back to you. Okay. That that it's not it's a me, huh? Is written. I don't I'll have to find it out. All right. Sorry. She's saying that Yurio went to the various places where the people of the 10 tribes were and take some of them back to be with Yehuda and Binyamin. In other words, we're not necessarily the descendants of Ye only Yehuda and Ben Yemen. There were those who escaped. I could be for sure I would say that some people of the 10 tribes did escape and and went to went from from the kingdom of Israel to the kingdom of Yehuda. So one way or the other. Yes. Well done. The Ethiopians are different. The Ethiopians are a fascinating people. They are cut off earlier from the Jewish population. As a people somehow we don't know quite how which tribe they're from. We don't know what tribe they're Well, I don't think so. I don't think we know what tribe they're from. We know when it happened around. We believe it happened in the time of Schlomma. And the Ethiopians are fascinating because they are a time warp. Basically they are cut off from the development of before the Talmud, before the Mishna, before rabbitic law to the extent that they what they practiced basically was what they Ethiopians got off the plane and said to the people who were there, take me to the basiktod. I want to go to the basiktod and I want to offer my sacrifices. They honestly believed that the base they had no idea that the basa mikdash had been destroyed. There were people from the who came and said uh various things that showed that the clearly they were cut off from all Jewish involvement. And the story of the Ethiopians continues to be a sad one because there are still many there that we have not brought over and it's not clear why we're not bringing them over. So it's uh it's something to think about. But anyway, can I can I just Yes. Was the injunction to offer peace preemptive or when war broke it out? Preemptive. Preemptive. Preemptive before. So what happened when war broke out from either one of the nations of the um the seven nations or some other nations? Were they also offered peace or not? We according to that's the debate according to the Rambam and the Ramban they were offered peace according to others no all right now let's go so what we have here is we have the rabbis saying that we can't identify an Egyptian today right we can't identify a Syrian today I remember very clearly and was very powerful ful for me. We were in Rome and we were talking I just want to make sure that I don't over um we were talking with a a about the arch of Titus and I gave a little speech to the group about Rabioan and Benzakai and the role he played at the moment that we were we were kic exiled from Israel. And the per the tour god who was not Jewish turned to us and said you know he says whenever I hear these stories what whenever I hear these stories I am astounded he said I live in Rome I don't claim can't claim to be a Roman right I can't I cannot trace myself back to the me members of the Roman Empire Nobody can. They're basically the powerful Roman Empire gone, right? But the Jews, we can identify our generations. We can identify the the flow. And he really was astonished by but and we should be astonished and thankful to Hashem and thankful to those who labored in such difficult difficult circumstances to retain their Judaism. Yes. What's the relevance of DNA testing to the Muslims? Whoa. That's very it's a very good question. What's the relevance of DNA testing? For another Well, yeah. I it's it's a it's a whole discussion. It it it doesn't couldn't apply here because we don't have the initial DNA. In other words, I don't have the DNA of AI, so I can't look at DNA. The question comes up about Kohanim. They've done research, a very interesting story where a Cohen who was an Ashkanazi saw a get an aliyah in his minion and said, "What? He's my cousin? Ha, you know, right? How could it be? And he was a scientist and he researched and found that there is a certain marker gene in gene on the gene in in the DNA that are is is found in most kohanim not all kohanim but it's not found in anybody else. Not found in anybody else. So the question is, do we now have to do a DNA test to have someone be a co-an? Right? It's a it's a very interesting question. Or or better yet, can we use DNA to define whether someone is a co-en or not? And the answer is something we should talk about another time. All right, let's go on. So what is happening now is the Rambam and others will take this concept of Bill Bhaumos and apply it practically to war. And if you look at the Rambam at the bottom of the page, he says, and this is again from all the quotes from the Rambam are from his or Mishna Torah, two names, which is his work. He says, "When Serv rose up and conquered people, he uh separated them and got them um irrime mixed them up mixed them up with uh other populations. at the bottom of the page. Therefore, we can accept as a true convert anomi a guy, someone who claims to be an Edomite, someone who claims to be an Egyptian, someone who claims to be uh what what's the third one he said? Uh Mitsy, Ammonite, right? Ammonite. and therefore they're not. Now, how does this apply to war? So, take a look at the next page. The this is the where the Rambam says that we are commanded to destroy the seven nations. He says, over says as follows. It says it is a mitzvah to kill the Hittites and anybody who meets a Hitittite and doesn't kill him is is sinning against the the the Hakic rules. In other words, it remains got to kill the Hittites. But then he adds one linear zik. And what does that mean? You cannot identify them. They are they're gone. And therefore uh now the question will be and if you look at their additional quotes down below that talk about the issue of this mitzvah to kill Hittite and say they say if we could if we could identify Hittite maybe we're supposed to give him maybe we're supposed to let him sue for peace depending if you hold that mitzvah falls into that category. operate but you're you're enjoying to kill him but we can't identify him so it doesn't apply what am right so if we see if you look there are two places in the Torah where the concept of destroying am is outlined in Shimote it says vom The hand is on the throne of God. Hashem is swearing is saying that it is a from generation to generation. Next, the next statement, the second, it's one line up from the bottom. When you have peace in your land and you've eradicate the memory of By the way, this is an interesting because it if you read the text, it seems that it's self-contradictory, right? Don't forget, erase the memory. It's really really easily understood. There's a difference between forgetting and eradicating. If you forget something, it's still there and it'll come back. If you eradicate it, it's gone. So therefore, what we're told we have to now. So therefore, does this apply to anybody today? I can't recognize I'm a what's so the Rambam does something very very interesting when it comes to the seven nations. We saw that he said when it comes to in the next page number eight positive commandment to eradicate the memory of and does not add Um, he does not add that statement which he adds when it comes to the seven nations. Why does he leave it out when it comes to Amalik and is he saying that I can identify in a malikite today? So there are whole range of debate about this. What is a mole? What does it represent? Is it a philosophical concept today? The RV of Salvichek says it depends on the understanding of the text. There are two places where we're commanded to destroy Hamik. In one it says the first one we read it alkaring by God there is enmity against mo forever. And then there's a second one which says when you are at peace in Israel in the land that you enter eradicate the memory says thereof there are two kinds of amalik there is that's and he sees this as the what the Torah is saying these two different passages there is the biological amoik and that biological amalik we were enjoined to destroy when it said that's what it's referring to the biological says says says the mitzvah we can no longer fulfill but there is a second kind of amalik anyone who rises up against us in horrendous fashion is amalik says and that's why the ram doesn't because he's saying that there is one kind of am that me their memory has not perished has not disappeared and that is kamasbah give me the whole litany yes I'm trying to understand I may have missed what you were saying are is it the seven nations right do are we suing for peace with them or are we destroying them Again, it's a debate. Can you repeat? It's a It's asking when when it came to the seven nations, did we sue for peace first or did we just destroy them? The answer is it's a debate. There are those who say that we sued for peace and that's the Rambam and the Rambam. There are others including Rashi who say no. The only time you sue for peace is with Rashus an optional war. And it was instead and then it then it would be with It would be right. Correct. Yes. But the choose then you have to use the boring assuming to figure out whether correct. Correct. You had a debate with son and so forth. Right. You had to you had the king had to consult with Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin had to when during the time when the urim and tumim were in existence and and could tell us things then we had to consult with that. And but the fact is that when it was lost, it was consultation with Sanhedrin and the and actually consulting the urim of tumim often was how to go. In other words, it was told you where to attack first, what to do. All right, turn to the next page. All right. If you take a look at the bottom of page eight, for those who will keep the sources, we have the Rav suggesting, right, you shall blot out the remembrance of a mole. That refers to the biological molec. The war with a mole from generation to generation establishes the obligation to obliterate any nation across the face of history that seeks to destroy the Jewish people. All right. Now, there are two other points that I'm going to make and then we're going to go back to Miden. And I write that we can safely assume that Kamas, Hezbollah, and all of those fall into the category of this philosophical amic that does not disappear. The bottom line. Yes. How would we categorize today Europe after our 2,000 year history? How would we categorize Europe in our 2000 day history? So the answer I think would be those who are maintaining that kind of enmity fall into the category of a malik. I we can't I you know in other words I would not say that they are going to pay for the sins of their fathers and grandfathers unfortunately like that's not not an option for us. Yeah it's coming out today. But absolutely it's coming out today. Absolutely. It appears that it's not entire nations, but it's throughout individuals. And the answer to that would be that would apply. Anybody who tries to obliterate the Jewish people or destroy the Jewish nation falls into the category of a molecules. Nasser, right, in Egypt was an Amalachite. That's that's the idea. Now there are two other things that I just want to bring up. The first is very is very short. The Rambam when he speaks about conquering nations a after suing for peace adds an additional requirement of them. Not only do they have to agree to be subjugated or subservient, they have to keep Chevoak, they have to agree to obey seven basic moral laws. And that suddenly what what happens is he changes the whole dimension of warfare because it's what is war? It's spreading morality. It's taking those who don't keep and saying if you want to make peace with us then you have to obey it and it's therefore increasing the observance of God's law for those nations. So someone asked do we require them to convert to Judaism? The answer is not according to the according to the Rambam we require them to accept the seven mitzvo. All right. Finally, on page nine, I return to Mid at the bottom, what I call the bottom line. In dealing with passages such as the Battle of Ma, we're talking about extraordinary circumstances. We're talking about a battle not only for survival but a battle to determine the moral compass of the world. In other words, this was they this was darkness and light and they could not coexist. And therefore, the battle of Midan that we read about in the text was not the battle that we have today. It was even deeper than that. It was a battle against light and darkness. It was a battle. And therefore, because it was a battle at the dawn of human history or the dawn of Jewish history, because it was a battle between light and darkness, extraordinary responsibilities applied. And what you had to do is you had to eradicate everyone except we saw except for female children etc. female children etc. Yes. Wasn't the term used in reference to Midyan? So is that say the word the word? Yes. Nom nikmas. It says take revenge or apply the revenge. The com nikmat using it as a verb and as a as a as a as a as a noun. Yes. Seven nations. Did you list the seven nations? Would I list the seven nations? All right. Prizyani yusi um gashoshi. Right. What? Uh kanani kiti ki pi gashi. Umi think um yusi yvusi kind right. Yusi is another one. And I'm missing one. I'm missing one. I'm saying I'm sorry I don't hear you. No, they were not. This milama that took place with Midan was an exceptional event, right? Where we were required to to eradicate them because of what they did to us and therefore it it is not doesn't fall into all the other rules. It's an exceptional event and that's how we should see it when we see it in the Torah. Okay. Finally, the last thing I would say and then you we can flo throw the floor open for questioning. The proof is in the pudding. We today for the first time in centuries have an army and that army fights in a way that's different from every everyone else. It's unheard of, for example, for other people to say to to to their enemy, "Get out cuz I'm coming." Right? Get out cuz I'm coming. There is no other no other army in the world that would allow, and this is under duress now. you're feeding them while you're while you're while you're fighting them, right? It's and we're required to do that. So, what we have, take a look at the last paragraph of the source sheets. This is taken from the Israel Defense Forces Code of Ethics. The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose of their mission. only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity during combat. Our our enemies did not retain their en their humanity during their attack. IDF soldiers will not use weapons of force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners of war and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, and dignity. Okay? What I'm saying is the following. That's the product of centuries of how we viewed war. We end up as the most moral nation. And that means that the struggle that we've had to understand the difficult passage passage in the text leads us to an understanding of the halic struggle to define war and to apply rules that no one else would apply. Okay. And our enemies are using civilians to protect themselves and that creates problems. Okay. It's a quarter after and I'm told that I have to end. So, I will end. But if anybody has questions, I'll I'll I'll take them personally. All the best. [Music]